Literature DB >> 26711421

Automatic Placement of Genomic Research Results in Medical Records: Do Researchers Have a Duty? Should Participants Have a Choice?

Anya E R Prince1, John M Conley2, Arlene M Davis3, Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz4, R Jean Cadigan5.   

Abstract

In genomics research, it is becoming common practice to return individualized primary and incidental findings to participants and several ongoing major studies have begun to automatically transfer these results to a participant's clinical medical record. This paper explores who should decide whether to place genomic research findings into a clinical medical record. Should participants make this decision, or does a researcher's duty to place this information in a medical record override the participant's autonomy? We argue that there are no clear ethical, legal, professional, or regulatory duties that mandate placement without the consent of the participant. We conclude that informing participants of results, together with a clear explanation, relevant recommendations and referral sources, and the option to consent to placement in the medical records will best discharge researchers' ethical and legal duties towards participants.
© 2015 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26711421      PMCID: PMC4780406          DOI: 10.1111/jlme.12323

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Law Med Ethics        ISSN: 1073-1105            Impact factor:   1.718


  43 in total

1.  What makes clinical research ethical?

Authors:  E J Emanuel; D Wendler; C Grady
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000 May 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Disclosing individual results of clinical research: implications of respect for participants.

Authors:  David I Shalowitz; Franklin G Miller
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-08-10       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Incidental findings: a common law approach.

Authors:  Stacey A Tovino
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2008 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.622

4.  Ethical and practical guidelines for reporting genetic research results to study participants: updated guidelines from a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute working group.

Authors:  Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Genet       Date:  2010-12

5.  Exclusion of genetic information from the medical record: ethical and medical dilemmas.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

7.  Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants?

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Michelle M Mello; Steven Joffe
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics.

Authors:  Mildred K Cho
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

Review 9.  The law of incidental findings in human subjects research: establishing researchers' duties.

Authors:  Susan M Wolf; Jordan Paradise; Charlisse Caga-anan
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

10.  Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results.

Authors:  Sharon E Plon; Diana M Eccles; Douglas Easton; William D Foulkes; Maurizio Genuardi; Marc S Greenblatt; Frans B L Hogervorst; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Amanda B Spurdle; Sean V Tavtigian
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.878

View more
  7 in total

1.  Perceptions of legislation relating to the sharing of genomic biobank results with donors-a survey of BBMRI-ERIC biobanks.

Authors:  Minna Brunfeldt; Harriet Teare; Sirpa Soini; Helena Kääriäinen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 4.246

2.  The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results.

Authors:  Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 11.025

3.  Ethical Issues in Newborn Sequencing Research: The Case Study of BabySeq.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Ellen Wright Clayton
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  Increased diagnostic yield by reanalysis of data from a hearing loss gene panel.

Authors:  Yu Sun; Jiale Xiang; Yidong Liu; Sen Chen; Jintao Yu; Jiguang Peng; Zijing Liu; Lisha Chen; Jun Sun; Yun Yang; Yaping Yang; Yulin Zhou; Zhiyu Peng
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 3.063

5.  Returning actionable genomic results in a research biobank: Analytic validity, clinical implementation, and resource utilization.

Authors:  Carrie L Blout Zawatsky; Nidhi Shah; Kalotina Machini; Emma Perez; Kurt D Christensen; Hana Zouk; Marcie Steeves; Christopher Koch; Melissa Uveges; Janelle Shea; Nina Gold; Joel Krier; Natalie Boutin; Lisa Mahanta; Heidi L Rehm; Scott T Weiss; Elizabeth W Karlson; Jordan W Smoller; Matthew S Lebo; Robert C Green
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 11.025

6.  Age and perceived risks and benefits of preventive genomic screening.

Authors:  Margaret Waltz; R Jean Cadigan; Anya E R Prince; Debra Skinner; Gail E Henderson
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 8.822

7.  Perceptions of best practices for return of results in an international survey of psychiatric genetics researchers.

Authors:  Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; Laura Torgerson; Hadley Stevens Smith; Stacey Pereira
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2020-10-03       Impact factor: 4.246

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.